1. Notice of Mr. Breivik Correspondence with Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html
2. Notice of PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html
3. Notice of Env. Appeals Board Complaint against Bar Assoc: Disciplinary Committee & Disciplinary Board for Advocates, Order that the Disciplinary Board and Committee: Provide their Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to them; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/bar-association1.html
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Notice to 22/07 Victims Families: Breivik/RH EcoFeminist Correspondence; PFU & Env. App Brd Complaints
Transcript of Email
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:52 AM
To: Frode Elgesem, Mette Yvonne Larsen, Siv Hallgren & 160 other Attorneys
Subject: Notice to 22/07 Victims Families: Breivik/RH EcoFeminist Correspondence; PFU & Env. App Brd Complaints
Radical Honoursty Transparency Notice to 22 July Victims Families, via Lawyers:
1. Notice of Mr. Breivik Correspondence with Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html
2. Notice of PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html
3. Notice of Env. Appeals Board Complaint against Bar Assoc: Disciplinary Committee & Disciplinary Board for Advocates, Order that the Disciplinary Board and Committee: Provide their Complaints Environmental Principles decision-making justifications for demanding complainants waste paper, ink and non-renewable transporation resources by printing, signing and mailing complaints to them; and refusing digitally signed complaints submitted by email, which are much more beneficial to the environment, and are exact environmentally digital copies of print versions
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/bar-association1.html
Respectfully
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:06 PM
To: 'Kjell Nyhuus'; 'PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold'
Cc: 'Ingrid Nergården Jortveit'; 'Trude Hansen'; 'PFU: Sec: Monica Andersen'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet
Subject: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission
Kjell Nyhuus
Commission secretary
Postboks 46 Sentrum
0107 Oslo
CC: News with Views & Lippestad Attorneys
Mr. Nyhuus,
RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
I am unable - so far - to get a clear answer from Lippestad Attorneys. My current working hypothesis conclusion (until provided with additional information) is as follows:
1. Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that Breivik's claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: Breivik does not subjectively believe his claims of (Anti-Islamicization) necessity; 22/07 Attacks and the trial were all just propaganda bullshit campaign.
2. Mr. Breivik has never contradicted Mr. Lippestad's statements that Breivik's 'Necessity' claim is simply a formality; or instructed Mr. Lippestad to withdraw his statements to the court; however Mr. Breivik's testimony, repeatedly focussed on his claim of necessity as the source for his innocence.
3. So, it is unclear: If Mr. Breivik sincerely believes his claims of innocence and necessity: (a) Why has he not instructed Lippestad to retract his statement; (b) If Lippestad refuses: placed the dispute with his attorney before the court and ask for new counsel; or (c) Lippestad is telling the truth; and Breivik really doesn’t subjectively believe in his necessity claim towards innocence, he is simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda campaign
HOWEVER: Irrespective of whether Mr. Breivik himself believes in his guilt, and is involved in a massive Bullshit the Public Relations Image Management Campaign; EVERY ACCUSED -- EVEN THOSE WHO PLEAD GUILTY, OR CONSIDER THEMSELVES GUILTY -- SHOULD ONLY BE REPORTED ON, AS 'GUILTY'; ONCE A COURT OF LAW HAS MADE A 'FINDING OF GUILT'.
So, whether Mr. Breivik consents to my complaint, or not; I request information as to the procedure to process this complaint, in the absence of Mr. Brievik's consent; either by
(A) presentation to the committee, that special circumstances of judicial ethics (factual legal findings of guilt, cannot be made by an accused, their lawyer, or any journalist, or editor; only an impartial court of law; and any reporter/editor who reports an accused to have been found guilty (irrespective if they pled guilty or not) is MISSTATING LEGAL FACTS) warrant that the complaint be treated without Breivik's consent.
Or
(B) An appeal to the Press Association's Secretary General, on his own initiative to request the matter be processed, as it is -- I imagine -- a matter of great fundamental public interest, that journalists not go around accusing people of 'findings of guilt' without a proper court of law having made such a legal finding of guilt.
#########################################################################
Below is a copy of the correspondence with Lippestad Attorney's; and excerpts of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik himself, on the matter; all of it is documented at the PFU: Press Complaints Commission: News with Views page: http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/press-complaints-comm-pfu.html
(full transcript of correspondence available at link)
#########################################################################
10 Aug 2012: Lippestad Attorneys: Req. Breivik Consent:
Request to Lippestad Attorneys: Attorney Tord Jordet:
The PFU appear to be refusing to process my complaint without Mr. Breivik's consent. Unfuckingbelievable!!!
1. Has Mr. Breivik received the request for consent?
2. If so, when does he intend responding?
===================
13 Aug: 2012: Lippestad Attorney: Breivik Consent & Breivik 'Guilt/Innocence & Necessity' Request to Lippestad for Clarity re: Breivik 'Innocence/Guilt' Issues:
1. Why did Defence Counsel not demand Prosecutor Engh and Holden provide reasons for their refusal to address Breivik’s claim of necessity?
2. Is it common for Norwegian Prosecutors to refuse to provide the court with the Prosecutor’s Office assessment of an accused’s evidence for their claim of necessity?
3. In Norwegian Law upon which party does the Onus of Proof lie in a claim of necessity?
4. Is there some political correct conformity conspiracy between Defence Counsel and Prosecution to ignore Breivik’s claims of necessity?
5. Why did your Defence of Breivik state that the only issues before the court – as the media have been reporting and you said to the court – are the sane/safety issue?
6. How exactly can the only issue before the court be the ‘sane/safety’; since when is the ‘guilt/innocence’ issue irrelevant in a political criminal trial?
7. If Lippestad attorney’s are denying the court to be required to seriously examine the necessity evidence for Breivik’s guilt or innocence; upon what grounds and authority did Lippestad Attorney’s find Breivik to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
8. Or is it a matter of first ascertaining Breivik’s sanity; and then if, or when Breivik is finally deemed sane, does he then get a new trial with a focus on ‘guilty/innocence’ issue; to determine his innocence or guilt, based upon the evidence for and against his necessity defence?
9. If not, when exactly is Breivik entitled to an impartial trial where the issue before the court is Breivik’s ‘guilt/innocence’ and Prosecutors and Defence Counsel are required to seriously legally examine the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence?
===================
Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:
"I have sent him your e-mail and document, and asked him to decide what to do with PFU. He receives many letters, and the prison have to read trough every letter before he receives it, so there is a delay before they give the letters to him. Therefore I would not expect an answer before next week at first."
===================
Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:
I was under the impression that Ms. Baera visited Breivik once a week; read it in somewhere in a newspaper last week. So I thought it would be easy for her to ask him if he consents or not. Probably an erroneous google translation! ;-)
However my amazement is about the PFU’s policy of approving deception and lies, if the target of such lies consents to the deception of the public. They don’t even pretend to have a commitment to truth and factual reporting, irrespective of whether the target of such lies consents or not. That is the source of my ‘un****ingbelievable’ comment.
Even if Mr. Breivik is batshit delusional and intended to plead guilty, until a Judge had ruled that he actually is guilty (that there were no circumstances of necessity or self defence in his act, whether he pleads to necessity or self defence is irrelevant; it’s a requirement for a judge to make sure that someone who pleads guilty had no such circumstances); it is a LIE to publish that such a person has been found ‘GUILTY’. It is irrelevant if it is Breivik or Tom Thumb; for a newspaper to publish that someone has been found GUILTY of a crime, in the absence of a impartial court making such a ruling; SHOULD BE A CRIME IN ITSELF.
Its massive public deception. So that is the source of my disgust… not sure what I am gonna do about it yet; I am still in shock, they can be so blaze about their endorsement of deception! I cannot fucking stand liars… I have more respect for people who tell the truth, even if I vehemently disagree with their truth, even if I find their truth despicable.. than I have for two faced hypocrites who practice public relations bullshit deception!
Sorry for the misunderstanding, if so.
===================
Response from Attorney Tord Jordet:
"Yes you are right, he receives visits weekly, and he can call us as often as he wants. I have informed him by phone that you have written a formal complaint to the PFU, and I told him that I would send the letter to him. Therefore I will have to wait for him to read your letter before I can give you a reply.
In general I don`t believe he would engage himself in a case against the press at this time. He was prepared for character assassination, and have been aware that the press will be out to get him. His views of most journalists indicates that he does not expect them to write truthfully and unbiased. Therefore I do not believe him to be affected by this article, and I don`t expect that he wants to spend time and energy fighting this journalist in PFU. He is most likely to approve certain cases against the press, but I don't think he will want to intervene in any.
As you probably know he is planning to write several books, and I believe that it is more likely that he will share his views on the media in a book."
===================
Response to Attorney Tord Jordet:
The complaint is not about Breivik engaging himself against the press at this time. This is about the PUBLIC BEING LIED TO about a matter of an accused being accused of being guilty, without having had a trial to determine such guilt.
I don’t discriminate against any accused; I don’t give a fuck who the person is.. whether they are accused of mass murder or peadophilia or whatever the fuck; NOBODY SHOULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING GUILTY IN A PUBLIC NEWSPAPER, IN THE ABSENCE OF A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL FINDING OF GUILT.
If Norway and Norwegian cultural press give a fuck about the truth…then it should be totally and utterly irrelevant whether an accused consents or not, to whether a newspaper can accuse someone of being ‘guilty’ of any particular crime, without such defendant having been found guilty in a court of law, and without such defendant having pled guilty.
I have no clue where you got the impression that Breivik is being asked to intervene in the case. I did not ask for his intervention; the PFU demanded his consent.
===================
Copy of Correspondence to Breivik, sent to Lippestad Attorneys:
Please take notice of correspondence sent to Mr. Breivik, honourable transparency, copied to your offices, in reference to:
------------
Request Clarification: RE: Habeus Mentem, Amicus Curiae and Review Applications Filed:
I am not quite clear. You acknowledge receipt of the legal applications I filed in the Norway v. Breivik matter, but refer to them as ‘my letter and email compaigns’? Do you dispute their contents as being unworthy of being considered legal applications; and if so, could you clarify how and why you do so? Or why do you refer to these legal applications as ‘letters and emails’.
In terms of my definition of ‘honour’; to be ‘honourable’ is to legally acknowledge the application by responding to the issues raised therein, as part of court procedure.
If you do not dispute them as legal applications: Could you please clarify what exactly your instructions were to your Attorneys in response to the applications I filed in Oslo District Court: Judge Nina Opsahl (Habeus Mentem: Right to Legal Sanity) and Judge Wenche (Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court) and the Norwegian Supreme Court: Review and Declaratory Order.
Request Clarification: What were your instructions to your attorney’s regarding ‘Guilt/Innocence: Necessity’
Mr. Lippestad stated in court proceedings that your claim of innocence and necessity was purely a formality: i.e. my interpretation: you did not subjectively believe your claims of necessity; its all just propaganda bullshit.
Your testimony, on the other hand, repeatedly focussed on your claim of necessity as the source for your innocence.
So, I am confused: If you sincerely believe your claims of innocence and necessity:
* At the very least: Why have you not instructed Mr. Lippestad to retract his statements that contradict yours?
* If he refuses: Why have you not publicly stated your lawyers refusal to follow your instructions and placed the dispute transparently before the court, as a matter of court record?
* Or, is Lippestad telling the truth; and you really don’t subjectively believe in your necessity claim towards innocence, you are simply engaging in a bullshit the public relations propaganda?
See Annex F: Letter to Mr. Lippestad: Request for Clarification regarding Defence Counsel’s focus on ‘sane/safety’ issue, while seemingly ignoring the ‘innocence/guilt’ issue, thereby denying Breivik’s right to Impartial trial to enquire into the evidence for and against his Necessity Defence.
----------------
All correspondence to, and from, Mr. Breivik is publicly available for reading, and download, at:
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/breivik-letters.html
############################ END #####################################
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Kjell Nyhuus [**@presse.no]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:14 PM
To: Lara; PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold
Cc: Ingrid Nergården Jortveit; Trude Hansen; PFU: Sec: Monica Andersen; Norway News in English: Nina Berglund
Subject: RE: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Status of your complaint.
As we as of now have not heard from mr. Breivik (or his legal team) the complaint not in process. I can assure you that this complaint cannot be handled by the commission without his approval.
The editor of Views and News, Nina Berglund, is on holiday. We must also clarify with her if her website is within our area. She'll be back on august 18.th.
On behalf of
The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission
Kjell Nyhuus
Commission secretary
Norsk Presseforbund/Pressens Faglige Utvalg
Postboks 46 Sentrum
0107 Oslo
Tlf 22 40 50 40
Dir 22 40 50 43
Mob 91 34 51 59
E-post: mailto:[email protected]/ mailto:[email protected]
Web: www.presse.no
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: Lara Johnstone
Sendt: 10. august 2012 10:23
Til: 'PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold'
Kopi: Kjell Nyhuus; Ingrid Nergården Jortveit; Trude Hansen; Trude Hansen; 'PFU: Sec: Monica Andersen'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'
Emne: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Gen.Sec. Mr. Per Edgar Kokkvold
Press Complaints Commission (PFU)
Box 46 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo
RE: Status of Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison (PDF Attached)
Please could the PFU provide me with a status report regarding the processing of my aforementioned complaint.
I seriously doubt Mr. Breivik has any objections to the complaint; I imagine to the contrary.
On 02 August, Mr. Tord Jordet informed me that "I have printed your e-mail and the attached PDF documents, and will send this to Breivik today."
As of today, there has not yet been a response from Mr. Breivik; if the prison officials have provided him with the correspondence.
However even if Mr. Breivik does have objections to my complaint (if he would prefer the Norwegian Elite to continue responding in the fascist fashion which they have to the 22 July attacks, to thereby (a) unequivocally confirm Mr. Breivik's allegations about the corrupt fascist Norwegian state; and (b) help Mr. Breivik to increase his following by making him a martyr of the corrupt Norwegian State[1]), as an incorruptible Radical Honoursty Problem Solving EcoFeminist, uncorrupted by Masculine Insecurity Patriarchal Parasite Leeching; I still demand the complaint be processed.
Consequently: Please could the PFU provide me with a status report regarding the processing of my aforementioned complaint.
This complaint relates to the following statement made by Ms. Berglund in her article: Breivik Moved to New Prison:
"Breivik's trial ended in late June and his guilt was established long ago, but the court will rule on whether he's sane and able to be sentenced to prison, or whether he's insane and must be committed to psychiatric care instead."
Summary of Argument:
It is my argument that only persons who (A) are totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of 'innocent until proven guilty' in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of 'innocent until proven guilty' in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could make the statement that: Breivik has been found guilty in a court of law.
The prosecutor's irregular decisions to 'refuse to touch Breivik's invocation of Necessity' does not:
(a) have the power to nullify Breivik's invocation of necessity;
(b) grant the court the authority to 'refuse to touch Breivik's invocation of necessity';
(c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik 'guilty' in a 'trial by media ignorance of the law'.
Please find complete complaint in attached PDF.
Relief Requested:
I accordingly request News with Views: Ms. Nina Burgland to be ordered to:
(A) Correct the error of her statement that "Breivik's guilt has been established (long ago)"; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact.
(B) Confirm that Anders Breivik's is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and;
(C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and;
(D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik's right to the presumption of innocence.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/
http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com
[1] Corrupt Norwegian State
http://norge-korrupsjon.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Lara Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:14 PM
To: 'Press Complaints Commission'; 'Norway News in English: Nina Berglund'
Subject: PFU Complaint: Norway News in English: Nina Berglund Erroneous Statement: 'Breivik Guilt Established Long Ago'
Press Complaints Commission (PFU)
Box 46 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo
Email: [email protected]
CC: Editor: Nina Berglund
News and Views from Norway
Email: [email protected]
Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison
Please Note: Attached is a letter submitted to Mr. Anders Breivik, via his Legal Representatives: Lippestad Attorneys, requesting his consent, related to the arguments made in this complaint.
This complaint relates to the following statement made by Ms. Berglund in her article: Breivik Moved to New Prison:
"Breivik's trial ended in late June and his guilt was established long ago, but the court will rule on whether he's sane and able to be sentenced to prison, or whether he's insane and must be committed to psychiatric care instead."
Summary of Argument:
It is my argument that only persons who (A) are totally ignorant of objectively applying the principles of 'innocent until proven guilty' in accordance to rules of evidence and due process; and/or (B) endorse the denial of the principles of 'innocent until proven guilty' in accordance to rules of evidence and due process to Mr. Breivik; could make the statement that: Breivik has been found guilty in a court of law.
The prosecutor's irregular decisions to 'refuse to touch Breivik's invocation of Necessity' does not:
(a) have the power to nullify Breivik's invocation of necessity;
(b) grant the court the authority to 'refuse to touch Breivik's invocation of necessity';
(c) grant the media the authority to find Mr. Breivik 'guilty' in a 'trial by media ignorance of the law'.
Please find complete complaint in attached PDF.
Relief Requested:
I accordingly request News with Views: Ms. Nina Burgland to be ordered to:
(A) Correct the error of her statement that "Breivik's guilt has been established (long ago)"; and/or provide the source for her statement of alleged fact.
(B) Confirm that Anders Breivik's is entitled to due process, including the right to be considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in accordance to the rule of law; and that no court of law has yet found Anders Breivik Guilty of any crime, and;
(C) Apologize to Mr. Anders Breivik for violating his right to the presumption of innocence, and;
(D) Apologize to her readers, for encouraging them to participate in the process of trial by media to violate Mr. Breivik's right to the presumption of innocence.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
Norway v. Breivik :: Uncensored
http://norway-v-breivik.blogspot.com/